Westministenders. For God sake Boris, is that the best plan you can come up with?

[RedToothBrush]

Its now five months from the referendum. Plans for leaving should be well advanced by now. Shouldn't they? We should have got past this ridiculous idea that we can have our cake and eat it. Yet the plan is a secret, well apart from when the EU leak things to the press or junior ministers let their underlings carry their notes for them.

A photo taken this week outside Downing Street, suggests that the ‘Have Cake And Eat It’ Plan really is seriously being considered by the government. This plan is 'clear' it has been spelt out many times by the government and yet no one has a fucking clue what it is apart from a car crash of utter nonsense, wishful thinking and fingers in the ears. Its so clear that Theresa May has admitted she is losing sleep over it, and has faith that God will steer us through via her moral compass (which I suspect to have been left on top of a rather large electro-magnet given her track record so far)

Still this, however, seems to be better than the ‘Fuck You’ Plan (or should that be 'Fuck EU') that is official UKIP policy and is to ignore a50 and leave the EU unilaterally. And possibly illegally, so no one will ever want to make an international agreement with the UK.

And this, is still at least better than ‘We Have No’ Plan that Labour have.

Other suggested plans are:
The ‘Lets Leave the UK and Screw Ourselves Another Way’ Plan as supported by the SNP which the majority of Scots seem to be against
The Welsh are quietly cultivating the ‘Shh Nobody Mention We Voted Leave But Are Now Going to be Difficult’ Plan as they suddenly realise they are about to be shafted financially and might lose the Welsh Assembly in the process.
NI might still go down the ‘Lets Unify Ireland and Start Another Chapter in Violence’ Plan though, the alternative might well be the ‘Lets Stay in the Union and Start Another Chapter in Violence’ Plan anyway, so they are screwed due to the immense thoughtfulness of the English.
Meanwhile the Lib Dems are all about the ‘Lets Just Not Do This and Instead Risk a Revolt’ Plan.

If anyone does actually have a coherent plan, then there are lots of parties who would love to hear from you.

Lets be honest about the secrecy though. Its not about the EU knowing our plans. They already know what all our options are, or more to the point, aren't. The government want to keep it out of parliament because they want to control it, and because they don't want the press to know. They do not want transparency, as they are so weak and so fearful that they will be shown up for what they are, even when there is no opposition.

So we are screwed. Unless somehow someone comes to their senses and puts it to the EU that a50 isn’t fit for purpose and that a new treaty must be done to respect the democratic will of the people and the EU let us go down that route (Hey didn’t I say that months ago?).

Tomorrow we have the completely pointless and costly vanity by-election for Zac Goldsmith. The referendum about Heathrow and not at all about Brexit. Latest betting 2/7 on Goldsmith and 5/2 on the Lib Dems. I think Goldsmith with his good looks will just sneak it, unless turnout is really low. But it will be close.

Sunday we have the Italian Referendum, which some have suggested would the Italian Bank Melt Down (and start of a new Eurozone Crisis) though many here say this fear is massively over stated through Brexit tinted spectacles. Sunday also sees the Austria Presidential Election Re-run with the Far Right Candidate currently looking like he has the slight edge.

A50. The Supreme Court case starts next week. Scotland say they have a veto. Wales say they are worried about the Devolution Problem. NI still might have their defeat in the High Court overturned and there is the Good Friday agreement. The Supreme Court might insist that the Great Repeal Act might need to be passed before we can invoke a50. And the plan if the government lose is merely a 3 line Bill which they want to rush through in 5 days no one would dare defy. Well except the Lib Dems are already saying they want amendments to ensure parliamentary scrutiny and what is the point of the Lords if they don't. So there is a fair old chance that if the government loses given the wider scope of the Supreme Court Case, a 3 line bill simply won’t cover everything it needs to.

We still don’t know if the ECJ might get involved. It seems the Republic of Ireland, might have a say in that too. An ECJ referral would mean a 4 to 8 month delay, even with the sensitivity and the importance of the case.

Don’t forget if you were planning on going/worried about it the 100,000 March on the Supreme Court is off. Due to not being planned in the first place although Leave.Eu will tell you different.

Speaking of the Great Repeal Act. This is supposed to be started in May. This would give it less than two years to be ready before we left the EU. Yet it has a load of hurdles to leap in its sheer complexity, and there is a real danger this will not be long enough. If not done correctly it has the potential to mean the legal system would “fall over”. This is basically the legal equivalent of when you mean yourself in a time travelling sci-fi creating a paradox which threatens the very existence of time itself.

A127. Another treaty, another challenge? Possibly, but maybe only a way to bargain for the EEA rather than something more. But it just shows the legal headache Brexit is. We still could end up in the ECJ on any number of other issues – not just a50. You know this legal headache the government is ignoring by having no lawyer in the Brexit Cabinet, and UKIP are just plan delusional about.

Anyway UKIP have a new leader. Paul Nuttalls. (sic – see Stuart Lee). He wants to privatise the NHS though he denies having said it either on camera or on his blog. Everytime anyone says ‘Paul Nuttalls to you, remember to say ‘Oh the one who wants to privatise the NHS?’ Just to make sure everyone is away that he wants to privatise the NHS. Repeat Ad nauseam. Hell this is what Labour are going to be doing, as they are bloody terrified. Why? Simple. He will, of course, be hugely popular despite this cos he’s got the right accent and says the ‘right things’. By ‘right things’ I mean cos he spouts utter bollocks. Which probably means he’s also electable seeing as utter bollocks is now political currency. Plus Labour are rather lacking in any policies, so utter bollocks policies easily fill the void.

Talking of utter bollocks, I haven’t mentioned Trump yet. The Greens have requested a recount and are supported by the Democrats, though they say they haven’t found anything dubious themselves yet. Trump says it’s a scam. Goebbels once said when telling the Big Lie accuse your opposition of what you are guilty of yourself, so I'm not betting either way given that is the political strategy Trump has employed with gusto. I dread to think of the mess that would cause if the recount came out in favour of Clinton.

So another couple of fun weeks on the cards, which will have you reaching for the gin and wondering if there is anyone left alive who actually gives a toss about what happens to real people and isn’t prepared to commit economic and democratic suicide.

Only another month to go before the 2016 Repeal Act comes into force. 2017 looks smashing.
Shamelessly stolen from David Allen Green

'I love Gladiator always watch it with my son'.

Bigchoc my criticisms of Mark Carney were not about his or the Bank's actions in relation to Brexit but in relation to the approach taken to accommodating DC and GO's austerity agenda which imo got us to where we are now.

HowAbout I'd be outraged if the Governor of the BoE, or any other public employee deliberately prevented a government carrying out the policies, especially those on which they were elected, whether it be austerity, nationalisation or Brexit.

I wouldn't want public employees to resign either, if they disagree with policy - that would be sabotage if many of them quit en masse.
They should just do their duty in whatever circumstances.

btw, Cutting benefits seems a popular policy and the main parties at the last GE all offered some form of this - Brexit happened because of an unusual alliance between those who normally have no voice and ⅔ of Conservative voters

Bigchoc a non-accommodative stance would not have prevented the government austerity policy but would have shown the damage it was doing much more quickly. It may also have prevented the reinflation of debt and asset bubbles and the further unbalancing of the economy towards the City bankers who as MC himself points out are still perfectly aware they live in a "heads" I win, tails you lose Universe.

I agree the PLP offered nothing but austerity light at the last GE and that is why I think they lost. At least you know where you are with an actual Tory was oft uttered.

Just reading the MN report on trust and the referendum.

The point that jumps out at me is

If Britain votes to Leave do you think the following is true or false:

The peace and stability on our continent will be put at risk
32% true 59% false 9% don't know

The stability of Northern Ireland will be put at risk
21% true 61% false 18% don't know

UK households will lose £4,300 per year and will be made permanently poorer
17% true 70% false 13% don't know

So even though the result was 48% to 52% there was a substantial number of people who voted Remain who thought that we would not become poorer as a result.

I wonder how many people think this is true now.

Chris Ship ‏@chrisshipitv
I want a 'Red White and Blue' Brexit says Theresa May as she pushes back against Labour motion & those trying to prevent Article 50

Interesting to see Theresa May resorting to such overt propaganda techniques in order to secure support for Brexit and undermine any opposition to Brexit that might arise from challenges to a50 in parliament.

1. Is there creeping doubt that the appeal might succeed in court? The timing sucks as it is also by its nature directing ill feeling towards judges.
2. Is she falling to win support by other methods and this is a sign of desperation also creeping in?

When anyone waves a flag in politics you should question it, as it is a direct appeal to emotion rather a substantive argument. For you to listen you really should look for the substance underneath it - it will be there is a lot of arguments, but its more often a cover for a lack of that.

There are plenty of quotes along the lines of Samuel Johnson who said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" (I believe the sentiment is found in Ancient Rome and has been used throughout history since)

This is in response to Labour's Opposition Motion which 40 tories are threatening to support.
politicalscrapbook.net/2016/12/how-labour-is-hoping-to-wreck-theresa-mays-brexit-plans-with-its-motion-tomorrow/
How Labour is hoping to wreck Theresa May’s Brexit plans with its motion tomorrow

If you remember the last time Labour tried to do this, with an opposition motion, May forced an amendment to stop her party rebelling.

The motion itself requests the government commits itself to publishing its Brexit plan before a50 is triggered. So its very similar to the early one.

At the time this previous intervention appeased her party but the fact that we are back here again, means she can't try the same trick again as they just don't believe what reassurance has been offered by David Davis, so instead is using this approach to try and stop rebels...

She is in last chance salon with this, in many respects. This would be a very embarrassing defeat. It also actually opens the door for Labour MPs to vote against ANY a50 bill, unless this amendment is effectively added to it. Labour could legitimately say it supports Brexit whilst ALSO saying it needs amendments.

She is running out of options over this 'no running commentary' and 'not revealing our hand' shit.

If she doesn't back down at some point, then there is a danger of a full scale no confidence vote being on the cards... (I also note at this point that I believe 50 MPs are needed to trigger a leadership challenge. 40 rebels is therefore a significant number - if there is a rebellion, the list of names will be VERY interesting, as will any notable absences)

In other news:
Angela Merkel has just called for a Burka Ban 'where ever it is legally possible' in Germany at her party conference.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-burqa-burka-ban-veils-angela-merkel-cdu-muslims-speech-refugee-crisis-elections-term-vote-a7458536.html

Back to a50
Law and policy ‏@Lawandpolicy
James Eadie QC is now wrapping up the government's case on Article 50.

Could not have made a better job of it. Impressive performance.

He was not without flaw though, by the look of it.

Conor James McKinney ‏@mckinneytweets
Sumption has just told James Eadie QC that he's given "two diametrically opposed answers to the same question in the last 5 minutes". Oof

Faisal Islam on Eadie's summing up:
Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam

Eadie: 1 Prerogative exists. 2. PArliament regulate some of it, not touched A50, deliberately. 3. No basis "hidden legislative" presumption 4. Serious constitutional trap - a presumption cant impute to PArliament, takes Court "over line" - a new serious control 5. In this case, where will of Parliament is clear

In this there are two things that jump out at me. He is saying that if the courts rule against the government they have over stepped their power and this has implications constitutionally for our democracy. (I do not share this opinion). He also says that the will of parliament was 'clear' when it made the EU Referendum Act (the counter argument to this, is if it was clear then the referendum would have been made legally binding like the AV referendum, but it was not so parliament had not been 'clear' in its intent). The very use of the word clear in a legal case is a bit eyebrow raising, as if it was clear it would not be in a court in the first place...

Carl Gardner ‏@carlgardner
It's a mistake is to think #brexitappeal is Remainer v Brexiter judges. It's not. There are strong legal beliefs cutting across that divide.

This is also a very important point, and I think THIS particular area is perhaps where Brexit has more parallels with the Italian Referendum in that the Italian Ref looks like there was a real mistrust in giving the executive more power which has democratic implications with regard to cheques and balances.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/05/italy-referendum-result-not-another-brexit-trump?CMP=share_btn_tw
Italy’s referendum result is not another Brexit or Trump

After reading up on the Italian Referendum, I do think that had I been Italian, given my beliefs that I would definitely have voted "NO" rather than Yes on this basis.

The EU
Barnier has been making a speech today on Brexit. He was at pains to say that he supported the UK being in the EU and had campaigned for us to join when France held a referendum on us joining.

What he said can be summed up well in just two tweets:

Peter Foster @pmdfoster
Barnier 4 points on #brexit #Article50

1. EU27 united
2. UK gets less rights as 3rd country
3. NO pre-negs
4. 4 Freedoms indivisible

Jennifer Rankin @JenniferMerode
Underlying message Barnier wanted to send is that EU is prepared for Brexit, while UK gov is in a mess.

Also based on a March 2017 notification of a50, negotiations would be completed by October 2018 - that's 18 months rather than two years. We are no where NEAR ready for this.

howabout One thing you can surely say is that austerity policies were what the electorate chose at both of the last elections (and I am no great fan either) . The Lib dems were able to enter into coalition because they too had a pro austerity agenda on the back of Vince Cable's recognition of the economic situation even before the banking crisis. Being the party to restrict Immigration, by creating it (along with the Libdems) as a scapegoat for the effects of austerity policies, was part of the vote winning strategy but Cameron won the last election by the margin he did I am sure because he was seen as the safe pair of hands with the economy in contrast to Milliband.

Of course David Cameron tried the same tack with his Remain campaign and it backfired because by then it was very clear that austerity was hitting the poorest hardest (the nothing to lose reason) and two thirds of the Tory voters were wooed by the strategy of appealing to the sense of entitlement to a rose coloured imperial past employed by the Brexiteers.

However I really do not think you can argue the people have spoken on Brexit but that they didn't equally speak on the need to tighten our belts after the banking crisis (admittedly probably as long as it wasn't their personal belt) and for austerity.

On austerity the people of Scotland certainly spoke differently at the last GE and as for rUK they had no choice.

Controversial argument now being put by government.

It rests on this paragraph:

"...as happened in Northern Ireland earlier in the century, we would expect a convention to be established that Westminister would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament". (Hansard, HL Debates, vol 592, 21 July 1998, col 791).

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam
Supreme Court justice says "depends on what you mean by 'normally'" - Lord Keen says it also matters what "with regard to" means

UK Govt lawyer says "no substance" to Scottish Govt lawyer argument over whether Sewel Convention applies to A50

In essence the government are arguing that they retain the right to act without the approval of the Scottish Government over certain matters thus preventing Nicola Sturgeon having a veto over Brexit.

The claimants had put forward the argument that Scotland could not be forced to do things against its will under this and the act of union at the High Court case, but the High Court did not look into this aspect of the case saying they did not need to as there were sufficient constitutional grounds to rule against the government already.

I believe that the Government will therefore also suggest that the act of devolution in 1998, will therefore effectively overrule the claimants argument re: the act of union though this hasn't been stated yet, because its more recent and supersedes it, and this was agreed to willingly by Scotland at the time.

However the Scottish government are likely to stay that the Sewel Convention is not 'just a convention' that can be overruled in 'not normal' circumstances, because the Scotland Act, included its statutory underpinning.

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam
Neuberger suggests Sewel Convention now statutory so, surely Courts can judge...

[Neuberger is head judge so raising this as a question is an interesting intervention - it does not necessarily believe this is true, and is merely raising the question]

This is VERY important for the future of Scotland and the Scottish Government.

Oooo this is cheeky!:
Chris Ship ‏@chrisshipitv
When Theresa May says she wants a 'Red White & Blue' Brexit, did she mean a French Brexit? A Norwegian one? Dutch? Czech?

Italian bank bailout?
Christophe Barraud ‏@C_Barraud
#Italy readying state bailout for Monte dei Paschi bank-sources - CNBC (citing Reuters)

Chris Ship ‏@chrisshipitv
No10 says they knew ratification was part of 2year timetable but won't say if they knew it was 6 months as @MichelBarnier has now outlined

And the railways may be about to be privatised by the back door
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/06/new-fully-privatised-rail-line-chris-grayling-plans-oxford-cambridge
Chris Grayling unveils plans for fully privatised rail line
Single company to own track and run trains on Oxford–Cambridge route in first such operation since 1990s privatisation

Rail privatisation has consistently polled as deeply unpopular with supporters of all parties, and privately owned Railtrack’s management of the track and infrastructure from 1994 to 2002 remains associated with fatal train crashes including Potters Bar and Hatfield, in Hertfordshire.

Plenty of room for Labour to make headway on this issue given their position on railways... Its also a pet project for Corbyn so I suspect it will be pushed a lot. This, however, does not affect a lot of voters in the North, seeing as the car is far more king than in the SE.

Cameron won the last election by the margin he did I am sure because he was seen as the safe pair of hands with the economy in contrast to Milliband

This and fuelling mistrust of Scotland in English voters. Which of course then rather helped the leave vote subsequently.

I have heard a lot of people say they voted the way they did on precisely these grounds.

Yes Red a LOT of my relatives in SE England surprised me by their fear of the Scottish tail wagging the dog. I could not get my head around it at all. Quite the irony that Michael Gove masterminded the Tory victory by cherry picking policies in marginal Southern seats etc and then went on to provide the gravitas to BJ's unbridled optimism in the Leave campaign.

Will catch up with Lord Keen later - worth noting he is AG for Scotland and is a Scottish lawyer lest anyone be persuaded the Westminster government is attempting to bully the beleaguered Scots.

I want a 'Red White and Blue' Brexit says Theresa May as she pushes back against Labour motion & those trying to prevent Article 50

My first though upon reading that, as one who grew up in Wales, was that the Welsh flag is Red, White and Green, then, there is no Red in the Scottish Saltire, so nothing for anyone except the Little Englanders (and the Loyalists in N Ireland). Is she even astute enough to realise that this is how she could be interpreted?

Or as someone on my Facebook feed just posted

Theresa May wants "red, white and blue #Brexit". The public finances will be red, our flag will be white, and the language when we see the final deal will be blue.

Or she could want us to kowtow to the Russian Federation - there flag is Red, White and Blue also.

On Twitter someone said sarcastically 'red phoneboxes, blue passports and white faces'.

'If the government is right, the European Communities Act would have a lower status than the Dangerous Dogs Act'

I like this Lord Pannick.

(I bet he hears 'hilarious' jokes about his name every day)

thanks, red, great summary as usual

I would not like to be the government up against this Lord Pannick fella. He is GOOOD.

Apparently he is a cross bench lord who has a reputation for being a 'people's Lord' as a result. (Which in itself has a certain irony given he is lead for the claimant).

He started off by saying that:
"If the government is right, the European Communities Act would have a lower status than the Dangerous Dogs Act."

Why? Because the Dangerous Dogs Act could not in effect be repealed by royal prerogative whereas the ECA could despite its far reaching implications and scope.

The government as argued by Eadie stated that the referendum was legally binding, and 'clear' in intent even though this was not explicitly stated, like the AV Referendum.

Pannick has dug this:
"The government resisted an amendment to give legal force to the referendum"

Thus making parliament's intent 'clear' that it deliberately did NOT make the referendum binding.

Indeed:
Matthew Holehouse @mattholehouse
David Lidington, minister for Europe, told House of Commons that EU Ref bill was "advisory", Pannick QC tells Supreme Court

So the government might have, in that leaflet, said they 'will do whatever you decide' but they previously had said in parliament that they in reality did not have the power to do this, and this leaflet promise was in effect, little more than a manifesto pledge.

www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-06-16c.186.7#g231.2
Debate here

Amendment 16 does not make sense in the context of the Bill. The legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what follows. The referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the 1975 referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year. In neither of those cases was there a threshold for the interpretation of the result.

The irony of this was the amendment was tabled by Alex Salmond and he wanted to make sure that the result required all parts of the UK to agree to it too (thus avoiding the need for half of this legal case!).

How much damage this does to the government's case I don't know.

The government did not change their original case that much, so its more down to the claimant's case having a hole in it that the Supreme Court find rather than the government having found something substantive that added to their own case.

Either way, on the point that the referendum was legally binding because the EU Referendum Act was silent on the matter is really rather bollocks on this evidence.

www.whatstheplan.uk
Don't know if these petitions do any good, but here's common ground's one if anyone's interested.

Sorry to cross post, but as we are going through the courts on a50, wondering if any of these challenges will work across the Atlantic:
www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=0
Republican 9/11 responder who will not vote for trump.
And another petition to respect the popular ( 2million majority) vote
www.dailykos.com/campaigns/petitions/sign-the-petition-to-the-electoral-college-elect-hillary-clinton-as-our-next-president?source=20161114sp3

Love the Dangerous Dogs Act argument by Pannick.
'this leaflet promise was in effect, little more than a manifesto pledge.'
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11541708/The-court-case-that-proves-you-cant-sue-politicians-for-breaking-their-election-promises.html
Maybe this case law should be taught in schools or in small print on election/referendum leaflets!

I can't believe that a significant number of people really want the electoral college to get rid of trump - what if the vote had gone the other way? It's one thing registering a protest quite another to change the the election result. How could Hilary govern on the back of being elected that way?

Having said that, the voting regulations and voting machines make America look like a Banana Republic - 2/5 questionable elections is ridiculous.

Schona Jolly @WomaninHavana
Dramatic developments outside Ct as Govt now saying it will publish #Brexit plan, but trying to hang on to March 2017 #Art50 trigger date.

This is in response to the opposition bill proposed tomorrow. They have made amendments again, with certain cavets about what this plan will include.

What's the betting this 'plan' won't say much and this opposition debate will happen a third time?!

Just catching up with Pannick at the Supreme Court - not even he has quite the same compelling charms as glitter balls

Having the same problem as Lord Carnwath reconciling the supremacy of the 1972 Act with the need to consult Parliament re A50. Once I consider the forthcoming Great Repeal Act and the current successful exercising of Parliamentary democracy in persuading TM to publish a plan I am even less convinced. However greater minds than mine are on the case and not a one in any way resembles Captain Mainwaring.

merry - I think the republican member of the electoral college who won't vote for trump is not going to vote for Hillary, but another republican - effectively spoiling his vote but reducing trump's majority for the little that's worth.